I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you and argue that you were incorrect to say I was incorrect, and that insofar as we are confining the discussion to "usual" interpretation, I was correct in saying this: " 'many' and 'few' behave as contrasts. Eg: 'Many TV shows are great' = 'Few TV shows aren't great'"
the word "MANY" is normally used to mean "ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A NOTICEABLE EFFECT in whatever statistic is being studied".
I agree with that. But I would argue that the exact same thing applies to "few"
mutatis mutandis. That is:
"FEW" is normally used to mean "NOT ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A NOTICEABLE EFFECT in whatever statistic is being studied."
And, in that sense precisely, it is useful for the test-taker to think of "many" and "few" as contrasting notions (which, incidentally, matches the intuitive distinction we would apply to the two terms).
For example, an author who argues that "
many bureaucracies are efficient" is certainly making a far different argument from one who argues that "
few bureaucracies are efficient." Indeed, these arguments are, in a very relevant sense,
opposite in meaning; yet it can be observed that the only thing that distinguishes them is many/few.
Thus, insofar as these considerations are relevant to the test-taker's attempt at arriving at the correct interpretation of authorial intent, there
is a contrast in meaning.
Furthermore, if a test-taker is trying to apply the denial test to an answer choice that uses "few", the denial would be "not few" and, surely, the test-taker would benefit from thinking about "not few" as "many".
And now for a lengthy argument:
Your reason for denying that there is a contrast in meaning seems to be that both "many" and "few" "traditionally refer to quantities less than a half." But, beyond that, as I wrote above, there is a very salient distinction between them: Just as, out of 100, "many" can technically mean anywhere from 1 to 100 but is
usually best interpreted as a "
sizeable" quantity less than a half (according to you), so too "few" can technically mean anywhere from 1 -100 but is
usually best interpreted as a quantity that is
not sizeable , and definitely one that is
well under a half.
Thus, out of "many" and "few", the former is usually intended to convey a
respectable or
appreciable proportion while the latter is usually intended to convey an
unappreciable proportion. Indeed, "many" in RC and CR is often used to emphasize or argue for a sizeable proportion while "few" is most commonly used to emphasize or argue for a non-sizeable propotion. (And note that these arguments can be made even where exact proportions are unknown--in fact these arguments are likely being made
because exact proportions are unknown. Therefore, the arguer arguing "many" may well intend to include the possibility of "most").
I would also add the following seriatim list of comments:
First of all, both terms have identical technical meanings, namely anywhere from 1 to 100 (out of 100). Second, these distinctions are
far more important for the LSAT. On that test, you would get into BIG TROUBLE if you
usually interpreted "many" and "some" as less than half. On that test, there are several questions intended to trap test-takers who are unaware that both "many" and "some" are capable of including "all". (I have, however, never seen a question (GMAT or LSAT) where, in order to arrive at the accredited response, you had to interpret "few" as including the possibility of "all".) Fortunately, GMAT doesn't test this stuff in the way that LSAT does, so much of this thread is, in a way, low-yield kind of stuff. Third, I think once you move beyond the strict numerical equivalency interpretations, there is different kind of correct advice you can give about usual best practices in interpreting these terms.